Affordability and rising energy costs are among the top concerns for homeowners right now. In response, some states are considering scaling back energy efficiency programs to lower energy bills for customers. These decisions are often driven by the very visible line items these programs add to bills, as well as shifting regulatory priorities, including federal efforts to reduce or roll back appliance efficiency standards. Proponents counter that these programs save ratepayers more money in the long run by reducing what they have to pay for supply, but they are not always winning those arguments. This digest will highlight how affordability concerns have inspired policymakers to identify any cuts they can to address the issues voters care about, and arguments about the longer-term payoff of energy efficiency are not working like they once did.
Rhode Island is capping energy efficiency spending: On February 9, 2026, Governor Daniel McKee signed an executive order rolling back state renewable and energy efficiency programs to help customers save money on their monthly bills. The proposal also includes capping energy efficiency program spending at $75 million per year – placing new restrictions where none existed before.
Massachusetts is pivoting to subsidizing bills: The legislature has considered several proposals to address affordability, including by weakening the state’s climate goals (a proposal that faced strong opposition and did not ultimately succeed). Now, Massachusetts lawmakers are getting ready to vote on a bill that would slash $1 billion from Mass Save, the state’s flagship energy efficiency program. The bill would also require the inspector general to review Mass Save’s operations by July 1, 2027. As the legislature pulls back on these programs, Governor Maura Healey has also committed to redirecting $180 million in utility funding from efficiency programs to help cover utility bills this month and next month.
Arizona is scaling back utility spending: In December 2025, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) voted to significantly reduce Arizona Public Service’s (APS) energy efficiency budget from $79.4 million to $40 million. According to ACC chair Kevin Thompson, the cuts eliminated unnecessary programs that benefited few ratepayers at the expense of the rest of APS’s customer base. Energy efficiency advocates countered, however, that the commission eliminated important programs to reduce energy use and lower bills for residential and commercial customers.
The common theme running through all of these states is that when faced with voter concerns about affordability, policymakers are turning to whatever levers they can. These efforts are focused on the short-term effects of reducing program charges on customer bills. While energy efficiency advocates are urging policymakers to consider the longer-term savings that households using these programs will see on their supply charges, legislatures and regulators appear to find addressing short-term sticker shock more compelling.
